
.p5X 



-X 



E 473 

• -'72 

.P52 

Copy 1 FITZ-JOHN PORTER. 



SPEECH 



OF THE 



HON. WM. WALTER PHELPS, 



OF ISTKAV JERSEY, 



FEBRUARY 1, 18 84. 



It is my duty to speak to-day for Fitz- John Porter, because he 1b my 
constituent : It is at the same time a pleasure and an honor because 
be is my friend, and I believe bim to be an hoijest man and a loyal 
soldier. 



HOUSE OF EEPRES£>TATIVES. 



WASHINGTON. 
1884. 



61503 

.05 



£"413 



S P E E (3 H 

Of 

HON. WM. WALTER. PHELPS, 



The House having under consideratioi\ the bill (H. R. 1015) for the relief of 
Fitz-John Porter — 

Mr. PHELPS said: 

Mr. Chairman: Speaking for the one most interested, I express his 
deep regret for the unkind allusions to the living and the dead which 
have been made in the heat of this discussion. In his long search 
for justice he has carefully avoided any reflection upon those who have 
impeded him in the pursuit, and he refuses to accept any responsibility 
for these allusions, whether made by those who are friendly or those 
who are unfriendly to the bill. And may I not a-ssume that if those 
•who had made theiin had the floor they, too, would express their regret: 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Slocum] who has charge of the 
bill, that he reflected upon the great war minister, whose great faults 
history will pardon for his greater achievements; the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Steele], that, in his surprise at finding that a general 
■on the board of examination viewed the evidence different from him, he 
intimated that he looked at the evidence with an eye upon the Presi- 
dency; the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Cutcheon], that he checked 
the course of his strong argument to intimate thatthere was another gen- 
eral who wished to l)e reinstated; my colleague from New Jersey [Mr. 
MoAdoo], a young liupert in debate, that he suggested that a convic- 
tion of the military incompetency of still another general was a uni- 
versal condition of sanity ; my peaceful friend from Michigan [Mr. 
Hork], that he confessed that he could think just as General Grant 
<lid in everything, except in military matters; and my neighbor here 
from Ohio [Mr. Taylor] — but I can not give the time to recall all the 
illustrious names that have been unnecessarily dragged into this de- 
bate. 

Could they all be eliminated it were better; and this case could 
stand or fall on its own merits. It is my duty to speak to-day for Fitz- 
John Porter because he is my constituent. It is at the same time a pleas- 
ure and an honor because he is my friend, and I believe him to be an 
honest man and a loyal .soldier. 

"The mills of the gods grind slowly " in his case. 

It was twenty years last week (Monday) since the last signature waa 
put to the verdict of a military jury which drove him out of the Army 
and made him a leper whi(;h his Government should never touch with 
an oflice of trust or profit. This verdict awarded him such infamy that 
for a while Iscariot and Arnold were his only competitors. A blunder- 
ing Department furnislied to an anxious President, a baffled Army, and 
an indignant people this sacrifice; and fifteen millions straining unto 
death to save thoii I'ountry in an hour of supreme despondency and 
gloom found a moinentary rclici' in cursing the name of Porter. 



! 

"Who was this sacrifice? One whose ancestry deserved well of the 
Eepublic; one, who as a boy of gentle heart and ways learned in the 
National Academy to hold a stain upon his honor as"a wound, and to con- 
ceive all honor as sphered in loyalty to his country; one, who as a youth 
stood the most chivalrous and accomplished officer in a guild whose 
military code gives to the testimony of a membe,r under oath no greater 
force than his formal declaration; one who in manhood won wounds 
and glory in the field, and who on the 27th day of August, 1862, as 
said the gentleman from Michigan, "stood the consummate flower of 
the American Army and its pride." This was the gentle, chivalrous, 
illustrious soldier who was thus lifted up into a storm of obloquy and 
reproach as a traitor to his country. What can he do? His fate is worse 
than Arnold's or Judas's. Arnold, hating his country, fled from it and 
received the rewards of treason ; but Porter loves his country, and has 
no thought except of loyal service. Judas went outand died, couscience 
stricken ; but Porter's conscience is clear, and remorse refuses to lead him 
to the field of blood. He does what an honest man ought, and only an 
honest man can do; he takes up his burden and bears it. He will live, 
and live down his wrongs. He will wait, and trust to God and his coun- 
try for redress. He withdrew to the quiet of a New Jersey village and 
established his home. There he laithfully discharged all his duties, 
neither seeking nor shunning observation. He was a good husband, a 
good father, a good neighbor, citizen, and friend. That little village for 
twenty years has watched, honored, and loved the man. They have seen 
his eye grow sad and his hair grow white with hope deferi'ed. But he 
never talked of his grievance nor asked for pity. He was fulfilling a 
sentence which, for such a man, Edward Everett truly said, was "in 
some respects worse than a sentence of death. ' ' This was his home life. 
His life abroad was a constant struggle to regain his good name. That 
was his mission, and he prosecuted it without pause or rest. On every 
proper occasion, in every proper place he declared his innocence, oftered 
his evidence, and asked for examination. He began when, on the od 
day of September, 1862, immediately after the battle of Manassas, he 
repaired to Washington and demanded a court of inquiry. Lincoln 
granted it on the 5th of September, and here is the order, but neither 
Porter nor the world knew it until sixteen years afterward: 

War Department, 
Washington City, D. C, September 5, 1862. 

Ordereil. That there be a court o.f inquiry to inquire and report as to — 

First. AFai-Gen. Fitz-John Porter. Was he and liis command in the battle of 
Friday, .Vu.uust 29, 1862, General Pope coiutnanding United States forces; and, if 
not, where was he; and why was he not in said battle? 

.Second. Mai-Gen. William B. Franklin. Was he and his command in the bat- 
tle of Saturday, August ,30, 1862, General Pope commanding United States forces; 
and, if not, why was he not in said battle ; why did he not march from Alexandria 
toward General Pope sooner than he did; and having marched, why did he not 
reach (Joiieral Pope sooner than he did? 

Third. Brig-Cien. Charles Griffin. Was he and his command in tlie battles of 
Thursday and Friday, August 29and 30, 1S62, General Pope commanding United 
States forces; and, if not, where was he; and why was he not in said battles, one 
or both? 

ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 

The court met three or four times and then ' ' was adj ourned indefinitely 
by order of General Halleck. ' ' Stanton gave no long rope to his courts 
when the people and the accused knew of them. He gave shorter rope 
when the people and the accused knew nothing of them. In this case 
he acted wisely. The War Department might hereafter need a court 
of a dififerent sort. It did, and he furnished it months afterward. This 



was the first act of his mission, and we trust that this is the last — where 
he stands an old man atthe bar of Congress, again declares his innocence, 
presents his proofs, asks for examination, and demands justice. 

What was his crime ? He did not obey an order of his superior to 
fight. And what was his defense? That the order came at night, 
and when it was too late to execute it. And second — for he was no 
coward, and only one man on this floor has been desperate enough to 
impute cowardice to him — and second, had the order come in time he 
would not have obeyed it, for its execution was the fruitless and assured 
destruction of his corps. I speak of one order. You say you have 
heard much of several orders. True, much in this House, but nothing 
in the report of the minority. The charges connected with the other 
orders brought into this discussion were so trivial and unimportant, and 
the answers to them were so complete and satisfactory, that the mem- 
bers of the committee to whom the opposition to this bill was intrusted, 
the prosecutors of this case, ignored them. Not so, however, the free 
lances on the floor, who found in this ocean of lacts about the sky above 
and the earth beneath and the atmosphere between so fruitful a head 
of eloquence that the galleries thought they heard the famous chorus 
of the opera, ' ' Let us talk about the weather. ' ' [Laughter. } Neither 
of thase two orders was to fight. They were simply to march. Though 
not important enough to be mentioned in the minority report, as they 
have been the source of so much eloquence in the House, let me refer 
to them to escape confusion. 

[Order No. 1.] 

HEADQU.4RTERS ARMY OF VIRGINIA, 

Brisloc Station, August 27, 1862 — 6.30.p. m. 
General: The major-general commanding directs that you start at 1 
o'clock, and come forward with your whole corps, or such part as is with you, 
8o as to be here by daylight to-morrow morning. Hooker has had a severe ao- 
tion with the enemy, with a loss of about three hundred killed and wounded. 
The enemy has been driven back, but is retiring along the railroad. We must 
drive him from Manassas, and clear the country between that place and Gaines- 
ville, where McDowell is. If Morell has not joined you, send word to him to 
push forwaid immediately; also send word to Banks to hurry forward with all 
S))eed to take your place at Warrenton Junction. It is necessary on all accounts 
that you should be here by daylight. I send an officer with this dispatch who 
will conduct you to this place. Be sure and send word to Banks, who is on the 
road to Fayetteville, probably in the direction ol Bealeton. Say to Banks, also, 
tliathe had best run back the railroad trains to Cedar Run. if he is not with 
y<ju, write him to that etl'ect. 

P. S. — If Banks is not at Warrenton Junction, leave a regiment of infantry and 
two pieces of artillery as a guard till he comes up, with instructions to follow 
you immediately. If Banks is not at the junc^tion, instruct Colonel Clary to run 
the trains back to this side of Cedar Run and post a regiment and section of 
artillery with it. 

The first order was that General Porter should start at 1 o'clock on 
the morning of August 28, 1862, and march his force nine or ten miles 
to Bristoe Station, that it might there join at daybreak with the main 
army for the puipose of clearing the country between that place and 
Gainesville. General Porter, upon receiving it, summoned his generals 
and they looked at the state of affairs. The night was dark and misty; 
the road, surface and ditch, was blocked with wagons and cannons and' 
their wrecks. It was doubtful if any effort made before the first glim- 
mer of light would accomplish anything. It was certain that no eflbrt 
could get the troops to Bristoe vStation at daybreak, as was desired. 
These troops were fatigued and would need rest. They should be fresh 
for the all-day task of wandering in pursuit, which the order fore- 
shadowed. The order showod.. too. that the tusk to which they were 



summoned was not one of immediate importance. It was not a aum- 
monB to a defense, or to an attack where great haste and exact punct- 
uality was demanded. The order said that the enemy had already been 
driven back and was retiring. The task was to "clear the country " 
behind them. That task could begin as well any hour after daylight. 
These facts upon which that little council of war passed were not 
conjecture. Before the order was received Porter had sent out two 
aids to view the road and report. This he did in anticipation of orders, 
and when he and his associates decided that it was not wise to make 
the start at 1 o'clock, he promptly sent a messenger to Pope and in- 
formed him of the decision and its reasons. He started at 3 o'clock 
witii the fii'st glimmer of light that made the start practicable, and 
there is no evidence that loss resulted to anybody from the delay. Pope 
admitted in his testimony (volume 1, p:ige 19) that it did no harm. 
The whole charge is so trivial that it was evidently brought as a make- 
weight, as something to buttress the main charge. 

Headquarters Army of Virginia, 

CenlreviUe, Auijtist 29, 1862. 
C(enerals McDowell a;id Porter : 

You will please move forward with your joint commands toward Gainesville, 
I sent General Porter written orders to that effect an hour and a half ago. 
Heintzelman, Sigel, and Renoaremovingon the Warrenton turnpike, and must 
now be not far from Gainesville. I desire that as soon as communication is es- 
tablished between this force and your own the whole command shall halt. It 
may be necessary to fall back behind Bull Run at CentreviUe to-night. I pre- 
sume it will be so on account of our supplies. I have sent no orders of any de- 
scription to Ricketts, and none to interfere iu any w^ay with the movements of 
McDowell's troops, except what I sent by his aid-de-camp last night, which 
were to hold his position on the Warrenton pike until the troops from here should 
fall upon the enemy's flank and rear. I do not even know Kicketts's position, 
as I have not been able to find out where General McDowell was until a late 
hour this morning. General McDowell will take immediate steps to communi- 
cate with General Ricketts, and instruct him to rejoin the other divisions of his 
corps as soon as practicable. 

If any considerable advantages are to be gained by departing from this order. 
It will not be strictly carried out. One thing must be had in view, that tlie 
troops must occupy a position from which they can reach Bull Run to-night or 
by morning. The indications are that the whole force of the enemy is moving 
in this direction at a pace that will bring them here by to-morrow night or next 
day. My own headquarters will be, for the present, with Heintzelman's corps 
or at this place. 

JOHN POPE, 
Major-Oeneral Commanding. 

The second order was addressed to McDowell and Porter. It is the 
joint order. It directed that their forces should move toward Gaines- 
ville. And what is the defense? Fu'st, Porter might have disobeyed 
without censure, for it was a discretionary order. The order says, "If 
any considerable advantages are to be gained by departing from this 
order it will not be strictly carried out. ' ' The second defense is that 
it was carried out, for the order found Porter with McDowell, just 
where it ordered him to be. Says McDowell (volume 1, page 349): 
" I commanded Porter's corps and my own division. We there on the 
ground received the joint order which directed the very thing we had 
done." And Pope knew that this joint order had been obeyed, for 
in his dispatch numbered 26A (volume 1, page 329) he says so. Why, 
then, did gentlemen discuss this joint order which was executed, as say 
both McDowell and Pope? There would seem to be no reason except 
for the temptation to warm our blood with the battle-cries of McDow- 
ell, "Fight? That is what we are here for," and "You go in there." 
These are good cries either for the House or for the lield, but they 



■were better had they been uttered by McDowell on the field as they 
•were 'repeated by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Keikek] in the 
House, in a voice that could be distinctly heard ; for General Porter 
never heard them; Lieutenant-Colonel Locke, chief of staff, never 
heard them; Captain Martin, of a Massachusetts battery; Captain Earle, 
Lieutenant Davis, and General Patrick never heard them ; but, being all 
six by and present, did hear General McDowell say, "This is no place 
to fight a battle; you are too far off." And when General McDowell 
was recalled to explain the dilemma, that the three gallant officers did 
not hear "That is what we are here for," and to "Go in here," but 
on the contrary', "This is no place to fight a battle," what was Mc- 
Dowell's explanation? I repeat his very words: 

I can not recollect preciselv what occurred or what conversation or what 
■words passed between us at that time. I can not say what lansruage I used or 
bow it may have been understood whilst talknig on that. (Pages 217 and 218.) 

Why did not the gentleman from Ohio declaim what General Mc- 
Dowell was heard to say, and not what he ■wished he had said ? The 
ci-y "This is no place to fight a battle" would not be so good for the 
House but would have been a better order in the field; for it has never 
seemed to me a very creditable picture, even when painted by the gen- 
tleman from Ohio, to see McDowell take eighteen thousand men (ten 
thousand of Eicketts's, eight thousand of King's) from Porter, leave him 
with only nine thousand, and march away with his great force from 
the field, while he pointed to Porter in the opposite direction and said, 
"You "-o in there." It ahvays seemed to me and to the world that 
McDovvell, if either, should have gone in there himself. [Applause.] 

Heauquarteks in the Field, 

August 29. 1802—4.30 p. m. 

Majot-General Porter: 

Your line of march brings you in on the enemy's right flank. I desire you 
to push forward into action atonce on theenemy's flank and, if possible, on his 
rear keeping your right in communication with General Keynolds. 

Tlieenemy is massed in the woods in front of us, but can be shelled outas soon 
as you ennage their flank. Keep heavy reserves and use your batteries, keeping 
well closed to your right all the time. In case you are obliged to fall back, do 
eo to your right and rear, so as to keep you in close communication with the 
right wing. jQj^jj pQpj,_ 

Mnjor-Oenerat Commanding, 

And now for the order of 4.30, an order which the minority report 
did discuss. Upon it stands or falls the guilt of Porter. This order re- 
(luired Porter to fight. It instructed hira to attack the enemy on his 
flank and, if possible, on his rea . . He did not attack the enemy on his 
flank or on his rear. And what is his defense ? First, he received the 
order after ti o'clock at night, when it was too late. But, again, Por- 
ter notwith.standing the cowardice with which the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Keifer] taunted him. chooses to accept a braver defense, and ad- 
mits that had the order come in time he would not have made the 

attack. . n X. X- XI „. 

First, as to the time that this order was received. Lelorethe court- 
martial there was no documentary evidence to fix it. There was much 
oral testimony, and some of it conflicted. The vast preponderance, 
however, seemed to establish the fact that Porter received it at sunset, 
Major-General Sykes says he was present when the order was delivered, 
and says, ' ' It was as near sunset as I can remember. ' ' Colonel Locke, 
too, saw the delivery, and says it was between sundown and dusk. 
Captain Monteith, too, was present; he says it was sundown. Thetes- 



timony of these three officers joined with that of General Porter would 
seem to be sufficient. But before the advisory board, sixteen y«ars af- 
terward, some new dispatches of Porter were produced. General Mc- 
Dowell produced one which is marked as No. 38 P. The whole context 
of this dispatch shows that Porter was at the time of writing it without 
any information from Pope, and eagerly awaiting it. He pleads, ' ' Please 
let me know your designs." After McDowell had presented it to the 
board and it had been read. Porter with a listless curiosity took it up, 
v/hen his ej^e fell upon the date obscurely written in the corner "Au- 
gust 29, p. m." This settles the matter. The 4.30 order was not 
received until after 6 p. m., August 29, 1862. It was received later, 
and, if later, it was received too late to make the attack if directed. 

But had it been delivered earlier, as it ought to have been. Porter 
would not have made the attack. He could not make it. He could 
not attack upon the flank, much less upon the rear, of Jackson's force, 
as he was ordered to do. He knew that a great force had come to Por- 
ter's front of which the order showed his commanding general knew 
nothing. This new force of the enemy blocked his way, and he could 
attack the flank or the rear of Jackson only by annihilating the force 
of Longstreet. Lougstreet had twenty-five thousand men in front of 
Porter; Jackson had twenty-three thousand in front, but to his right; 
and Porter had what McDowell had left him, nine thousand. Porter 
could attack and lay their bodies at the feet of Longstreet's guns. The 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Beovvne] thought he ought to have done 
so, as he thought that the charge at BalaklaA'a was war and not a spec- 
tacle. Porter thought otherwise, and his opinion seems to have been 
approved by General Grant, General Schofield, General Terry, and Gen- 
eral Getty. He must bear this difference of opinion between himself 
and the gentleman from Indiana in sucli company as this. [Laughter. ] 

lois charged that Porter did not know at that time that Longstreet's 
forces were before him. What evidence shows that he had this knowl- 
edge on the afternoon of the 29th of August, 1862? First, the whole 
tenor of his dispatches show^ that he had watched the progress of the 
enemy's forces and hatl been constantly expecting Ijongstreet's appear- 
ance. On the 27th Porter says in a dispatch, No. 20, " Everything has 
moved up north," and says that he gets his information from an inter- 
cepted letter of Lee's. McDowell knew it, and said that Longstreet was 
coming through Thoroughfare Gap (volume 1, page 349), and McDowell 
says he told Porter all lie knew. Again, in the dispatch that Porter 
sent at 6 o'clock, August 29, asking Pope for information, he says: 

From the masses of dust on our right, and from reports of scouts, I think the 
enemy are moving larg;ely that way. 

Earlier in the day Porter had captured prisoners from Longstreet's 
army. At noon McDowell showed him Buford's dispatch, which said 
that a large force had passed Gainesville, only three miles oft", before 9 
o'clock that morning. (Volume 1, page 82.) At about that time the 
enemy fired musketry at McDowell and Porter while their forces were 
together, and during all that afternoon Marshall and Morell were fly- 
ing over the country testing the enemy at every point, and reported in 
a dozen messages that they found him everywhere present introntand 
in strong force. (Dispatches 29 to 31, both inclusive, volume 1, pages 
333 to 335, 380 to 382. ) These were the means by which Porter gained 
his information and he testified that he had it before the court-martial 
in 1862: 

To begin, tilt fundamental avonnonf of the order upon which it all rests is en- 



9 

f irely untrue. That averment is that my line of march as pursued under the 
joint order above referred to brought me in on the enemy's right flank. The 
fact is that my line of march as so pursued brought me not in on the enemy's 
right flank, but it brought me directly upon the front of a separate force of the 
enemy from ten to ttfteen thousand strong, of the presence of which thus di- 
rectly in my front General Pope, when he wrotetheorder, was wholly ignorant. 

Do gentlemen want better evidence than this? Here is Pope's an- 
nouncement on the •27th that the enemy is coming. Here is Mc- 
Dowell's testimony that he knew on the morning of the 28th that the 
enemy was coming through the gap. Here are prisoners taken on the 
morning of the 29tii, and here are Marshall and 5lorelI in a dozen mes- 
sages in the afternoon of August 29 confirming his knowledge. And 
here, as well as anywhere else, let me say that I do not find that the 
new testimony, whether obtained from loyal or Union sources intro- 
duces anything new. It only serves to confirm what Porter and his 
witnesses had testified to in the trial. 

These were the ofi'enses. What was the court-martial that passed the 
sentence? It was composed of nine soldiers, gathered hastily in this 
city out of the gloomy atmosphere of defeat. They sat within the roar 
of the enemy's artillery and their taces were black with the smoke of 
battle. They were honest and honorable men. but they were human, 
and when a stem Secretary of War who made and unmade generals at 
his will ordered them to vote and go, they voted and went. When 
they voted, they gave, just as you and I would have done, to their 
country the benefit of the doubt. They sat forty-five days; they gave 
the accused thirteen days out of them. They neglected to produce any 
of his witnesses for whom he asked, but Stanton's order was read in the 
morning and they closed the testimony that day and went. 

The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Keifer] said this was a ' ' most august 
tribunal. ' ' Has he forgotten the Long Parliament and its prompt obedi- 
ence and adjournment at the command of CromweU, compared with 
which this "august tribunal " was a slow coach ? 

They voted and went. The world will never know but that it was 
by a vote of five to four that Stanton got his will. I hope it was not 
so. For one judge left the bench and went to the witness-box to tes- 
tify for conviction, and four other judges received promotion within 
two weeks of the time they rendered their judgment. I wish the 
wdrld on this point might appropriate the exclusive information of the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Cutcheon]. He says "the nine able 
generals who tried him with all the essential facts before them said there 
could be but one verdict." This is the inibrmation that we want, the 
unanimity of the nine generals, but unfortunately it is confined to that 
gentleman, and history may not appropriate it. He has, too, exclu- 
sive information, for which Englishmen would pay a million oi' pounds. 
They would give that or more to make Admiral Byng a subordinate and 
the commander of a single ship. It would wipe out a bloody page in 
British history, and the stinging epigram of Voltaire, who thought that 
the English had to kill every now and then a brave adtniral to encourage 
the rest. [Applause.] The gentleman from Michigan had, also, ex- 
clusi ve but this time inaccurate knowledge of the course of history. He 
says "impartial history will declare that there could be but one ver- 
dict," yet the report of the minority which he signed calls attention 
to the opinion of a vmter which it calls "a careful military historian, 
the author of perhaps the best historj^ of our civil war that has been 
written. ' ' The report says that ' ' he was supplied with ample facilities 



10 

to inform himself and so situated that he can and does write without 
prejudice or passion. This historian, the Comte de Paris, writes: " 

Impartial history should censure Lee's lieutenant rather than Pop^e's for hia 
inaction during the 29th; and whether the latter did or did not neglect the orders 
of his chief, it must be acknowledged that Porter's mere presence in front of Long- 
street condemned forces outnumbering his own to remain inactive which other- 
wise might, with great advantage to the confederate cause, have been employed 
to attack Porter or to re-enforce Jackson. 

How happened my accurate friend from Michigan to make this great 
mistake? It came naturally from the unwillingness of his side to look 
at any new e^adence. He read the first edition of this history, which 
censured Porter, and neglected to read the new edition, where the 
princely author, having read the new evidence, dared, like Grant and 
Schofield and Terry, to change his opinion in the presence of new and 
conclusive facts. And inasmuch as the ability, fidelity, and impartial- 
ity of the Comte de Paris have been so generously avouched by our 
opponents, let me read what was his final opinion: 

His attack — 

Speaking of that which the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Beowne] 
wished him to make on the night of August 29, so that the country 
might have seen aaaother Balaklava — 

His attack, therefore, could not have produced th« results upon which tho 
general-in-chief had counted. In spite of the impossibility of his executing lit- 
erally Pope's order, and whatever may have been the orders given him by Mo- 
Dowell during the day, Porter might undoubtedly have pressed the enemy 
more closely. Perhaps he might even have obtained a partial success before 
Wilcox's arrival. But under no circumstances could this movement have had 
the slightest effect upon the result of the engagement which was now taking 
place on the right of the Federal Army, for Longstreet could have resisted Porter 
with forces superior to the latter without being obliged to detach a single man 
from that engagement. Therefore impartial history should censure Lee's lieu- 
tenant rather than Pope's for his inaction during the 29th, &c. 

But it is scarcely fair to leave the gentleman from Michigan alone to 
bear the errors which the side he so ably but inaccurately defended 
have everywhere made. I have time now to allude to a misrepresen- 
tation, unintentionally made, of the opinions held with reference to the 
conduct of the trial by Reverdy Johnson. One gentleman assumed 
that this august tribunal, which closed its evidence upon the day that 
the Secretary of War ordered, which sent one of its judges to the wit- 
ness-box and saw four others promoted within two weeks of the verdict, 
was all right, because Reverdy Johnson had said: 

Whatever may be the result, neither General Porter nor his friends can hav» 
any ground of complafnt against the court. I consider the trial to have been 
perfectly fair. 

This would have been a great help to the character of this august 
tribunal had it been true; unfortunately it was a newspaper story; 
fortunately I have the newspaper in which it was published, and across 
its lying face are written these words: ' ' False, absolutely false. R. J. '' 

Here is the newspaper, and here is the indoi'sement, and here is the 
letter vnltten by Reverdy Johnson, in which he says: 

I have obtained a copy of the Chronicle, and inclose yon the article on th© 
reply. The fact it states as to what I said in the presence of high officials of fh© 
Government is entirely false. 

The generals who sat on the court-martial voted and went back to 
the fight. They hoped they had done their duty, but feared. Their 
uneasiness increased when lawyers, soldiers, and States began to ex- 
amine their report. They examined it silting apart from the noise of 
battle and they weighed calmly the evidence. Lawyers like Daniel 



11 

Lord, Sidney Bartlttt, B. R. Curtis, J. G. Abbott, "William D. Ship- 
man, and Charles O' Conor declared over their own signatures that 
the original verdict was against the original evidence. Said Daniel 
Lord : • 

At the time of General Porter's trial I read the proceedings with astonish- 
ment at the testimony received and acted on, and am convinced that the trial 
was substantially conducted on an order to convict. 

Said Judge Curtis: 

I think General Porter was improperly convicted on the evidence before the 
court which tried him, and he is at liberty to use tliis opinion when and where 
he chooses. 

Said Bartlett: 

You are entitled to my judgment in the matter, which is that the evidence 
fails to support the charges against you, and that acquittal instead of convic- 
tion should have been tlie result. 

Said Abbott: 

The finding of the court seems to me so unwarranted by the whole evidence 
that I should be glad to think it was the judgment of a tribunal utterly illegal 
and not recognized by the laws of the land. 

Said Judge Shiiiman: 

With all deference to the members of the court, I thought then, and still think, 
their conclusions unwarranted by the evidence. 

Said Charles 0' Conor: 

I am convinced that a new trial ought to be had in the case of Fitz-John Por- 
ter. There is no adequate evidence of the miseonduct alleged, and the record 
leaves it very doubtful whether any opinion was ever formed against him which 
can justly be regarded officially authoritative. 

These lawyers, in writing, without pay, over their own signatures, 
thus doelare that on the original evidence Porter's should have been ac- 
quitted, and asked that the President of the United States should open 
the cjtse. The President who put the last signature to the verdict ex- 
pressed to a governor of New Jersey his ardent wish that it might be 
opened. 

Governor Newell writes to Governor Randolph: 

1 had several conversations with President Lincoln, The President was much 
interested, and said cheerfully that he would gladly grant a reopening if any 
newevidence exculpatory of General Porter could be adduced. Hesaid that he 
had no prejudice, but had been obliged to form his opinion from Judge Holt's 
examination, as in his multitude of cares he had not been able to make a per- 
sonal investigation. 

The charge has been made that notwithsta,nding these sentiments 
President Lincoln refused an application for a review of the case. No 
application was ever made. A few months after the judgment of the 
<?ourt-martial Edward Everett, Robert C. Winthrop, Amos A. Law- 
rence, and others, of their own motion and without the knowledge of 
General Porter, prepared an eloquent memorial to the President, in 
which they asked him to reconsider the proceedings of the court- 
martial. The memorial got into the newspapers, as anything signed 
by such illustrious names naturally would, but was never presented. 
General Porter heard of it and sent his earnest request to Mr. Everett 
that no such action .should be taken. He said wisely that it was pre- 
mature. Another, who became President, and whose presence upon that 
couii>-martial gave its decision greater weight, on the 18th of January, 
1875, moved in this very House that a board of examination might be 
appointed who should receive the new evidence which was offered. He 



12 

introduced this resolution unsolicited, and wrote to General Porter that 
he believed it would be adopted; and here is the resolution: 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United Slates of America 
in Co7iffi-ess assembled, That it shall" be the duty of the President of the United 
States to convene a board of otlicers of high rank in the Army, unconnected 
with the armies or transactions in question, to examine the evidence alleged to 
have been discovered by and to be in the possession of Fitz-John Porter, unat- 
tainable at the time of this trial, and report what, if any, bearing such evidence, 
if substantiated, would have in the findings and sentence of court-martial in hig 
case. 

And here is the letter, with that signature so familiar and so dear to 
many of us. I present it now because it has been made public before: 

WAsklNGTON, D. C, February 19, 1875. 

Dear Sir: Yo<ir two letters came duly to hand, together with the pamphlet. 
I owe you an apology for not answering you sooner. 

I introduced the bill to which you refer, not because I was conscious of any 
intentional wrong done you by the court, for I have never concurred in the se- 
vere reflections ■which have from time to time appeared in the public press on the 
motives and conduct of that court; but I am willing that any new evidence you 
may have shall be jiresented to the Government in an official form, and re- 
ported to the President by a board of officers who were in no way connected 
with the trial or with the operations of the army to which the trial related. 

I have spoken to several members of the Committee on Military Affairs, and 
understand them to be willing to report the bill to the House. They have not 
yet had an opportunity to do so, but 1 hope they will before the session closes. 

I shall consider your pamphlet as confidential, unless you otherwise direct me. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

J. A. GARFIELD. 

General Fitz-John Porter, 

Morristown, N. J. 

Gentlemen who have used their wit to belittle the dignity and meth- 
ods of the advisory board and claim great friendship for General Gar- 
field would employ their wit better in telling how it difters from the 
hoard proposed in this resolution by him. Garfield proposed that the 
President should appoint. Garfield proposed thatthe appointees should 
be officers of high rank in the Army. Garfield proposed that this board 
should examine the eWdeuce alleged to have been discovered by and 
to be in possession of Fitz-John Porter, unattainable at the time of hi3 
trial, and report what, if any, bearing such evidence, if substantiated, 
would have in the findings and sentence of the court-martial in his 
case. How does the ad\isory board here proposed and described difler 
from the one whose report is before us ? There has not been even an at- 
tempt to .show the difiereuce. One gentleman, when pressed , exclaimed, 
" Garfield meant to liave no such board as this. ' ' . 

Two of the board were so prejudiced against the accused that they at 
first rel'used to serve. Did the gentlemen object because one of the 
judges had no prejudice ? This resolution introduced by Garfield shows 
that he was willing to have the proceedings of the court-martial open 
and its findings reviewed by an advisory board. And unless our oppo- 
nents can destroy the records of the Forty-third Congress they should 
cease their efforts to misrepresent his position. I draw my conclusions 
from this public act of General Garfield. As his friend, I can not pro- 
duce his private letters to show how near under provocation he came 
to breaking the secrecy on which honor shut his lips, and if I did this 
dishonor to his memory I shoiild want to find something stronger for 
my case than the Cox letter, where he says: 

I have not yet made, in the light of the new testimony, a careful strategio 
study of the field and map as you liave done. 

Can there be a stronger comment on the impropriety of this practice 
than the eflfort to claim an opinion from General Garfield out of a letter 



13 

in which he admits that he had made no careful study of the subject? 
I, too, have letters, and they have allusions to this subject not tinfavor- 
able to the side I advocate. Here are two of them, but they are marked 
' ' personal ;' ' and I will not read them to hurt the dead that I may help 
the living. 

A third President listened, approved, and acted. He named a board 
of examination just like that suggested by Garfield. He put on it 
"officers oi" high rank in the Army, unconnected with the armies or 
transactions in question. " He put on it Generals Schofield, Terry, and 
Getty, men whom the gallant Sherman declared to be ' ' officers than 
whom three better do not exist in the Army. ' ' They made, as Garfield 
suggested, "an examination of the evidence alleged to have been dis- 
covered by and to be in the possession of Fitz-John Porter, unattaina- 
ble at the time of this trial," and they reported that tlie bearing ot 
such evidence should reverse the findings and sentence of the court-mar- 
tial in his case. They had new evidence from the confederates against 
whom General Porter was ordered to march. They had new evidence 
in the dispatches of General Porter which had been concealed or with- 
held. They had accurate maps of the ground and the disposition of 
the forces. On these they report and acquit Porter of all guilt. Gen- 
tlemen hesitate becaiise they are unwilling that the proceedings of this 
court-martial, this august tribunal, should be reviewed. They claim 
that the review of a court-martial is unconstitational. I do not agree 
with this view. They speak as if court-martials were the Supreme Court, 
and established by the Constitution. They were, however, created by 
the Legislature, and the power that created can re\iew, correct, or de- 
stroy. But the action of the House to-day is not a review of the couit- 
martial or its proceedings. We are hearing no appeal from that court. 
We are exercising a frequent and undisputed right. We are putting in- 
to the Army of the United States an illustrious general whose serv- 
ices there will be valuable to the Commonwealth. If our action seems 
to reflect upon the view of General Porter's merits which the court- 
martial expressed, that is an unpleasant discrepancy between that board 
and this House. Let the verdict stand and go into history. • But out- 
side of the courts and irrespective of that court's decision the world 
now knows and admits that General Porter was a good soldier and suf- 
fered a wrong. And Congress, recognizing the inexorable logic of facts, 
accepts the conclusion and, completes a pardon which the Executive 
began. [Applause. ] It were as well to claim that the pardon of the 
President oveiTuled the court-martial as that our action in restoring 
General Porter has overruled it. 

The advisory board did not sit to review the trial of the court-martial. 
They sat to review a case in which the parties were the same, but the 
evidence was very different. Their report contributed to that general 
conviction and that popular knowledge on which with the report we 
are acting. On the facts derived from this report and el.-iewhere we are 
;jsked to restore General Porter to his position in the Army. He does 
not ask money for services he was always ready and willing to perform. 
He does not a.sk compensation for suffering and loss almost unparalleled 
in histoiy. He only asks that the ranks of the Army from which he was 
driven .should be open to receive, and that the sword which was taken from 
him should be placed at his side. Shall this scanty justice be refused 
him? While I make the appeal I pause to admit his faults — serious 
faults, but excusable; faults, but not crimes. He was not a traitor. 
Punish him if, in his anxiety to furnish the information for which Bum- * 



14 

side, McCIellan, and Lincoln constantly pressed him, he spoke with a 
frankness and freedom which was characteristic of his nature but con- 
trary to the military discipline when he spoke of one who was his superior 
in the field. Eemember that dispatches were coming from Lincoln, from 
McCIellan, from Bumside, saying that their only knowledge of the mo- 
mentous events transpiring in the front must come through him, and 
that, in grateful obedience to three men whom he especially honored and 
trusted, he wrote just what he thought; and remember, too, that his- 
tory has stamped just what he thought and wrote as the truth. For 
this breach of military discipline, however, let him be punished. He 
had no faith in hiscomniandingofficer, and he improperly communicated 
his suspicions and dislikes to the President of the United States and to 
his commander-in-chief. This was an oflense, and so was Washington's, 
when on the hot Sunday at Monmouth he cursed General Lee loudly 
for his cowardice or folly. But this offense is slight and has been already 
punished. Don't think of this little fault. Think of his great vir- 
tues. Remember how he fought on the 30th ! That order came in time 
and fix)m a superior who at last had learned his surroundings. And 
with Porter at their head the Fifth Army Corps charged into the gates 
of hell, and into the jaws of death. This was magnificent, and this 
was also war — war at its sternest. They went in six thousand — they 
came out leaving twenty-two hundred on the field. It was a loss to 
Porter of twenty-two hundred friends, for the Fifth Army Corps was, 
and is to-day, and while one veteran survives will be, the faithful, 
unfaltering, loyal friend of its gallant commander. Give him back to 
them. [Applause. ] 

Mr. Chairman, the chief of the rebellion walked down the steps of 
this Capitol threatening to return and destroy it. He attempted ita 
destruction and failed. Yet Jefferson Davis walks in freedom. Men 
who penned our soldiers in Andersonville and Libby still live. 

Ofi&cers trained at West Point, whose treason is not investigated, for 
they practiced it from the Mississippi to the Potomac, sit in this House. 
Shall Porter, innocent in heart if erring in act, alone be punished? 
Must he be a sacrifice for a nation ? 

The hero of Mexico and Malvern and Manassas asks only for justice; 
if you refuse him justice, I plead, against his wishes, for mercy. Take 
this innocent man from the side of Judas and Arnold and place him by 
the side of those who honor him — by the side of Getty and Sykes and 
Terry and Schofield and Grant. [Long-continued applause] 



Mil 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




013 702 937 6 



penmalife* 



